Please see below, which is being shared with the mailing list to include on record. From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 23 December 2020 at 12:47 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Consensus Call - Closes Friday, 08 January 2021 at 23:59 UTC Dear Emily Please see below my revised 7 clarified statement Dear Cheryl Dear Jeff Dear All, Revised /Clarification on my unqualified Consensus The introductory / preamble of the Consensus call stated This statement supersedes and replaces my earlier statement sent on 22 Decmber 2020 . Statement Quote “The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. It is also indicated that the Report is the consolidated results of the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. We were thus encouraged to consider the Outputs in the aggregate output document The document undoubtedly is not perfect. In fact, it could not be perfect at all due to the fact that is stemmed from an intense and extensive negotiation which involved the establishment of a balance between various views from users with different interest and different objectives I wish to state that a) this is a consensus call i.e. a call to the entire community to pronounce their consensus which in a simple language means even if one or several parts totally or partially is7qare not agreed but one could leave with that as a collective efforts making a trade-off between various options, views, insights, visions, expectations and demands; b) Commenting on a document as a whole requires that an overall approach be taken without disintegrating various elements of an output on any subject matter. c) Even if we still believe there are parts that we may not fully ssupport, specific identification of an elements, item in a given parts as not fully reflect individual views of each one of us may generate further discussion, disputes and divergence of views. d) Drilling into the poppy while may satisfy one or few persons, entities but globally would be counter productive. e) What was discussed during the last 5 years in different tracks back and fort to the main group may not be appropriate to be reopened for one or several rounds of discussions In view of the above, having been in this business for decades and recognizing that there is no absolute perfection and every thing may have advantages and disadvantageous I wish to submit my unqualified consensus support for the entire report. I therefore may request your kind indulgence requesting each one of you to take a pragmatic approach to treat this very precious output which is the results of months and years of collective efforts of the entire community to the best of their understanding, knowledge I wish to emphasize that and my above-mentioned unqualified consensus to the Report only and merely applies / covers those Recommendations which were concluded /adopted by CONSENSUS at the level of working group. For non consensus or partial consensus Recommendations I have no comments at this stage with my best regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 22 Dec 2020, at 23:00, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Cheryl Dear Jeff Dear All, The introductory / preamble of the Consensus call stated Quote “The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received. It is also indicated that the Report is the consolidated results of the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report. We were thus encouraged to consider the Outputs in the aggregate output document The document undoubtedly is not perfect. In fact, it could not be perfect at all due to the fact that is stemmed from an intense and extensive negotiation which involved the establishment of a balance between various views from users with different interest and different objectives I wish to state that a) this is a consensus call i.e. a call to the entire community to pronounce their consensus which in a simple language means even if one or several parts totally or partially is7qare not agreed but one could leave with that as a collective efforts making a trade-off between various options, views, insights, visions, expectations and demands; b) Commenting on a document as a whole requires that an overall approach be taken without disintegrating various elements of an output on any subject matter. c) Even if we still believe there are parts that we may not fully ssupport, specific identification of an elements, item in a given parts as not fully reflect individual views of each one of us may generate further discussion, disputes and divergence of views. d) Drilling into the poppy while may satisfy one or few persons, entities but globally would be counter productive. e) What was discussed during the last 5 years in different tracks back and fort to the main group may not be appropriate to be reopened for one or several rounds of discussions In view of the above, having been in this business for decades and recognizing that there is no absolute perfection and every thing may have advantages and disadvantageous I wish to submit my unqualified consensus support for the entire report. I therefore may request your kind indulgence requesting each one of you to take a pragmatic approach to treat this very precious output which is the results of months and years of collective efforts of the entire community to the best of their understanding ,knowledge and mutual collaborations with my best regards Kavouss